On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/30/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I now have 2 Support; I appeal CFJ 1935. > > I call for judgement on the statement: > * If I am judged GUILTY in CFJ 1935, a sentence other than DISCHARGE > is appropriate > Arguments: > ais523 claimed that eir "punishment" of revealing my potential scam > makes me eligible to claim R101 (vii): > vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than > once for any single action or inaction. > > For obvious reasons I cannot say why, but revealing that particular > idea was indeed a punishment to me. Whether ais523's actions count as > my being "penalized", however, is a different question.
Gratuitous arguments: Accepting the caller's logic in this case would mean transferring the responsibility for determining the appropriate penalty for an offense from the judge to the defendant. It would then be possible to skirt any real punishment for any rule violation by voluntarily accepting a trivial "penalty", e.g. destroying a pen, or pledging not to exercise eir vote on some proposal in penance. Clearly this interpretation is not in the best interests of the game. -root
